CAT/C/79/D/1055/2021 he or she is facing deportation, either as an individual or as a member of a group which may be at risk of being tortured in the State of destination and, second, that the Committee’s practice has been to determine that “substantial grounds” exist whenever the risk is “foreseeable, personal, present and real”.24 It also recalls that the burden of proof is borne by the complainant, who must present an arguable case, that is, submit substantiated arguments showing that the danger of being subjected to torture is foreseeable, personal, present and real. However, when the complainant is in a situation where he or she cannot elaborate on his or her case, the burden of proof is reversed and the State party concerned must investigate the allegations and verify the information on which the communication is based. 25 The Committee gives considerable weight to findings of fact made by organs of the State party concerned; however, it is not bound by such findings, as it can make a free assessment of the information available to it in accordance with article 22 (4) of the Convention, taking into account all the circumstances relevant to each case.26 7.5 The Committee notes the complainant’s argument that the human rights situation in Cameroon is generally worrying and that the authorities resort to the use of torture against opponents,27 bring civilians accused of separatism before the military courts, 28 and restrict the freedom of expression and peaceful assembly of members of Mouvement pour la renaissance du Cameroun. The Committee also notes the State party’s argument that, despite the unrest in the English-speaking part of Cameroon (that is, in the North-West and South-West regions), the country as a whole is not experiencing a situation of war, civil war or generalized violence, and that, moreover, the reports of human rights violations against members of Mouvement pour la renaissance du Cameroun are documents of general scope that do not concern the complainant personally. The Committee also recalls that the existence of human rights violations in a complainant’s country of origin is not, in itself, sufficient for it to conclude that he or she runs a personal risk of being tortured. 29 Therefore, the mere fact that human rights violations occur in Cameroon is not in itself sufficient to conclude that the complainant’s expulsion to that country would constitute a violation of article 3 of the Convention.30 7.6 The Committee notes the complainant’s claim that, as the head of a local unit of Mouvement pour la renaissance du Cameroun in Yaoundé, he campaigned for that party during the 2018 presidential election, took part in several anti-government demonstrations, including on 9 April and 1 June 2019, and was arrested on 15 April and 1 June 2019 and detained until 25 November 2019. The Committee also notes the complainant’s allegations that, during his arrest on 15 April 2019, police officers ill-treated him, remonstrated with him for abandoning Rassemblement démocratique du peuple camerounais and forced him to sign a document in which he undertook to leave Mouvement pour la renaissance du Cameroun. The Committee notes that the State party stresses in its observations that, as the complainant did not return to Cameroon in September 2018, his claims to have engaged in political activities, in particular in 2019, are not plausible, and that the State Secretariat for Migration expressed doubts about the events that he claimed to have experienced. 7.7 As for the political activities carried out in Switzerland, the Committee notes the claims that the complainant was responsible for mobilizing Cameroonian nationals living in Switzerland to take part in the demonstrations on 3 October 2020 in Geneva. It also notes that, according to the State party, the complainant had not substantiated his claim to have played a part in rallying support for Mouvement pour la renaissance du Cameroun in 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 GE.24-09258 Committee against Torture, general comment No. 4 (2017), para. 11. Ibid., para. 38. Ibid., para. 50. See https://www.hrw.org/news/2019/08/20/cameroon-detainees-tortured. See https://www.la-croix.com/Religion/Cameroun-pretre-comparait-devant-justice-militaire-2021-0610-1201160461. A.M. v. Switzerland (CAT/C/65/D/841/2017), para. 7.7. See the following decisions on the expulsion of persons to Ethiopia: H.K. v. Switzerland (CAT/C/49/D/432/2010), para. 7.5; R.D. v. Switzerland (CAT/C/51/D/426/2010), para. 9.7; X. v. Denmark (CAT/C/53/D/458/2011), para. 9.6; E.E.E. v. Switzerland (CAT/C/54/D/491/2012), para. 7.7; M.F. v. Switzerland (CAT/C/59/D/658/2015), para. 7.7; T.Z. v. Switzerland (CAT/C/62/D/688/2015), para. 8.7; and X. v. Switzerland (CAT/C/65/D/765/2016), para. 7.8. 9